HomeMy WebLinkAboutClerks ReportREVISED
REPORT OF THE CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
PETITIONS RECEIVED:
►[:Meta
COMMUNICATIONS:
►[:Meta
ITEMS TO BE FILED:
Minutes of the August 7, 2008 meeting of the Museum Board
SPECIAL CLAIMS:
Special Claim submitted to City's Insurance carrier
Deborah Wylie, 1303 Liberty Street, in the amount of $195.02 for injuries due to falling after
swing chain broke at Littlle Oshkosh in Menominee Park.
Penny Richter, 616 W. 8 Avenue, in the amount of $15,196.34 for property damage as a
result of sewage in basement.
Ohio Street Station / Dave Todd, 815 Ohio Street, in the amount of $5,223.00 for property
damage as a result of flooding in basement.
Jennifer Liska, 609 W. 9 Avenue, in the amount of $40,000.00 for property damage as a
result of flooding in basement and garage on June 8, 2008; and, $20,000.00 for
reconstruction value due to property damages as a result flooding on June 12.
Gene Kent, 19531 Stamford Drive, Tomball TX, in the amount of $1,522.88 for damages to
his vehicle as a result of hitting an unmarked projecting curb on High Avenue and Market
Street.
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AT COUNCIL MEETING:
Letter concerning the Campbell Creek Watershed Storm Water Management Plan
�i
� e
Oven Letter Concerning:
$Ep 11 2008
8P
CITY CLERK'S QFFiC�
August 22, 2008
The Campbell Creek Watershed Storm Water Management Plan
I am an interested third parry, not a resident of Oshkosh or even Wisconsin. However, each year
since 1987 I have attended EAA and am close friends with residents of the Westhaven area. As a
civil engineer with an extensive experience in flood control planning, design, and construction, I
would like to make some pertinent observations concerning the proposals which are on the table
relative to the Campbell Creek Watershed Storm Management Plan For my background see the
next to last paragraph of this letter, Item AA.
I would like to state up front that I have sympathy for the residents of the neighborhoods
surrounding the Westhaven Golf Course, and like them if I were a property owner there I
certainly would not want the golf course converted to another use, which in a real or perceived
manner would affect my property values or ambience. I am also a trained appraiser and fully
understand the effects that this project would have on the adjacent property values. That said, ][
will only address engineering and conceptual issues that the average citizen is not likely to be
aware of and which may make the project questionable especially in light of the proposed cost.
A. First of all, it appears that this project is being sold to the citizens primarily as a flood control
measure to address long existing flooding problems within the city. In reviewing the handout
from the public meetings in March, it becomes apparent that the real driving force for this project
is not flooding per se but the requirement for reduction of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in storm
water runoff as mandated by the Wisconsin DNR. As outlined in -the handout, this project only
meets a fraction; .27 %, of the increased 368 tons which DNR is requiring to be removed. My
perception in traveling around the city is that except for temporary construction sites, there is
very little bare /exposed ground within the city and especially within the Sawyer Creek part of the
city. Where is the sediment coming from? For the most part it probably comes from upstream
areas outside the city limits. What are the sources in town? (a) Detritus deposited on the streets
by vehicles, such as dirt, gravel, and tire rubber. (b) Leaves and mown grass that finds its way
into the streets. (c) Dust and pollutants that settle out from the atmosphere. (d) Erosion of roof
shingles and asphalt parking lots, etc. You get the idea. I recently had a discussion with a public
works director for an Oshkosh -sized city in another state regarding their control measures related
to suspended solids contaminants in runoff from his city. He stated that other than construction
site erosion control, they were only concerned with sweeping streets to remove tire, oil, and other
similar petroleum -based pollutants to prevent them from reaching and contaminating streams and
lakes.
If construction site erosion is controlled, a typical Midwestern city should not be generating
much sediment from vegetative landscapes. Commercial grass cutting could be a major
-- controllable source, if like in my city, lawn services are allowed to blow mown grass and
trimmings into city streets with abandon. I do not know the Oshkosh policy in this matter. For
the biggest benefit for the buck, control of high volume runoff might better be addressed by
temporarily impounding that runoff in structures along streams just before they enter the city.
This controls the size of the peak runoff volume, catches sediment, and has the added benefit of
not disturbing existing infrastructure inside the town. Another measure that does not seem to be
part of the project, at least in the documents I have seen, is lining drainage ditches and their
laterals with concrete to speed the storm flow through the city and into the Fox River. Doing this
on the lower part of Sawyer Creek would get storm runoff from inside the city well on the way to
the river before the runoff from outside the city limits reaches the same point in the waterway.
B. Second, the golf course as it now exists is serving as a very good flood control measure and
"sediment trap ". Virtually all sediment generated on and in the areas now draining onto the
course stays there. The vegetation, existing ponds and low areas trap both water borne sediment
and particles settling out from the air. All rain and ensuing runoff falling on the course and -the
areas draining onto the course is retained or greatly slowed in its journey into the storm sewers
and drainage channels of the city. This reduction of the "time of concentration" (an engineering
term) means that the height of any flooding downstream is both reduced in depth and duration.
The rain which falls on roofs, driveways, streets and other impervious surfaces races into the
culverts, sewers, and channels much faster (faster time of concentration) meaning lesser sized
storms will be able to produce flooding.
C. Politically the city is probably more interested in meeting the TSS requirement due to DNR
pressure, but I would imagine that the citizens would be more interested in reducing flooding.
Beyond enlarging existing culverts and drainage channels, and lining those channels with
concrete, the reduction of flooding is probably best addressed not within the city but just outside
the city limits. That is where there is room to install detention dams for the temporary
impoundment of storm water and the permanent entrapment of sediment. For Sawyer Creek this
means the installation of one or more impoundment structures to control the runoff coming from
the agricultural areas to the southwest of the city limits. Absent some surveying and
engineering studies, this appears feasible in the area just northwest of Carl Traeger Elementary
School, south of Sawyer Creek Drive, and west of Newport Ave. In this location Sawyer Creek
flows to the northeast from the intersection of West 20th Ave. and Clairville Road. A series of
low water dams along the creek in this location for the temporary impoundment of storm runoff
would greatly affect both the size and duration of runoff problems on downstream within the city
along Sawyer Creek. If more storage is needed due topography limitations between the West
20th Ave. intersection and the subdivisions to the northeast, then there is the possibility for
installing more dams along the creek to the southwest of that intersection. This is all located in
agricultural land which simplifies doing it, but would require purchase of land or easements for
that construction.
D. Cited within the handout from the public meeting was the mention that DNR does not allow the
routing of small storm events out of the waterway. (I would read this to mean conveying runoff
across the divide between two drainage basins though this may not be the actual DNR
interpretation.) The plans for the Westhaven Golf Course (Alternative 13B -- Detention and
Upstream Diversion Component 13134) would seem to violate this restriction. Near the
intersection of Maricopa Drive and Allerton Drive, two new storm sewers are to be installed.
The first new sewer just to the east of that intersection connects into storm sewers diverting
water from outside the drainage basin of the golf course and into the golf course upper detention
dam. It is not determinable from the plans just how big an area is encompassed by this diversion
but obviously several to perhaps many acre -feet of storm water would be involved. The pipe
itself is 36" diameter reinforced concrete which on the indicated 2.5% slope would carry a
significant volume of water and be routed between the residences at 1641 and 1643 Maricopa.
The second new sewer is to be installed just to the west of that intersection and brings storm
water from the south into the golf course. This new diversion is even more problematic as it
diverts water from well outside even the subdivision. It picks up water from West 20th Ave.
with direct connection to existing sewers there, as well as intercepting ditch drainage south of
West 20th Ave., southeast of Universal Street, and south of the Wisconsin & Southern railroad.
This is obviously diversion of storm water runoff from the industrial area south of West 20th
Ave. In layman's terms, this could be a lot of water, and this is further evidenced by the size of
that culvert which is a 3' by 6' concrete box. This box culvert is routed to the golf course across
the vacant lot at 1659 Maricopa. Again, this diversion appears to violate a DNR restriction
against routing a storm event across watershed boundaries.
A similar diversion from outside the golf course waterway is located between the residences at
1475 and 1465 Maricopa. A 36" reinforced concrete pipe is to be connected to the existing street
storm sewer at that location and will route that water over to the lower golf course detention dam
behind those residences. Again the quantity of the storm water diversion is not apparent but a
large pipe is involved. There may also be a major problem associated with this pipe. It falls in
grade only one foot between its connection to the existing storm sewer and the outlet end in the
detention dam. When the dam is filled with its designed 100 -year storm detention capacity, the
water level will be 4 feet in elevation higher than the inlet connection at the storm sewer in the
street. Anytime the water is higher in the dam than the culvert elevation, the water will flow
backwards through the pipe to the storm sewer in the street. In conjunction with installing the
36" pipe, the existing storm sewer will be blocked with a bulkhead to prevent any flow to the
east (which it does now) in the existing pipe. Therefore the "backward flowing" water from the
detention dam will have to spill up out of the storm sewer and into the street. Instead of storm
water going into the storm drains at this point it will erupt as a spring/fountain and will do so
until the detention dam is nearly empty. This may be prevented by one -way flap valuing but
that is not shown on the plans, and if used can be a continuous maintenance problem.
E. In the area immediately behind 1397/1403 Maricopa the proposed retention dam shows a
proposed spillway with an elevation of 781.82 roughly six feet higher than the existing ground
elevation behind the homes /residences in this area. This spillway is one of only two apparent
discharges for the storm water once it has been diverted to the impoundment basin on this the
lowest area of the east portion of the golf course. The other discharge is a 24" diameter
reinforced concrete pipe which provides controlled (slow) release of water from the detention
through a connection to an existing storm sewer in the street between 1437 and 1441 Maricopa
Drive. This pipe will provide a relatively slow flow rate due to pipe size and the very flat grade
of the pipe (0.02 %). In other words, the draining of the water from the retention pond will take a
long time. For most storm events, this is a good thing because of its reduction of flood peaks on
downstream in the city. However, it can create serious problems for several Maricopa Drive
residents and perhaps to areas beyond. The reason for the spillway is to protect the integrity of
the retention dam should more runoff come into it than it can hold. Too much rain in too short a
time and the pond fills to its capacity. To prevent the dam from washing out due to overtopping,
the water is released in an uncontrolled manner through the spillway. How much is solely
dependent on the size of the rain event(s). Ostensibly, the retention is designed to accommodate
3
a 100 -year rainfall event (probably a 24 hr. storm) though I don't have that information. All of
the uncontrolled release from the spillway will discharge into several backyards of residences
surrounding 1403 Maricopa. This is somewhat low risk in terms of the frequency of occurrence,
but should be an entirely anticipated future event.
What I have just laid out is the little hidden secret (not revealed unless you ask the right
question) related to many flood control measures. Up to a certain point most measures generally
work as advertised, but beyond that point the flooding effects can be made worse, and sometimes
a lot worse than had they not existed at all. Certainly, you can build a dam high enough to
contain any conceivable storm event, but as a practical matter you never do so for economic or
political reasons. First, you do not want the dam to wash out because to allow that to happen
would produce a mini flash flood of water and soil into and through the neighborhood. An event
such as that would be worse than the dam not having been there in the first place. The spillway
is there to protect the dam, and for no other reason. Second, an effectively larger rain than the
design rain event can occur even without a true 100 -year storm. If one storm hits which fills or
nearly fills the retention dams which is then followed by another large storm a day or so later the
flood control structures can be overwhelmed causing the spillway to produce an uncontrolled
release. This is similar to the multi -day rain and flooding event that occurred in Oshkosh in
June. Two elements make such a multi -day storm problematic for the design. First, the "day
one" rain saturates the ground so the "day two" rain event is essentially 100% runoff as none is
absorbed into the ground. Second, the full or almost full retention dams with their, acres of water
are effectively the same as pavement, and produce 100% runoff. The existing golf course with
no detention dams, diversion pipes, or diversion channels would not behave in this manner and
would not make the flooding event(s) worse. To the contrary, as mentioned earlier, they already
function as a flood control measure by slowing absorbing rain and slowing the "time of
concentration ". There is one more consideration relative to the design storm event that is
important. If the design is based on a 24 hr. 100 -year storm as I expect, then if a 36 or 48 hr.
100 -year storm occurs, there will be much more runoff and the spillway will be required to
discharge that excess water. By way of information, the storm tables show that 100 -year rain
events for Oshkosh would be approximately: (1) 6 hr. -- 4.00 inches, (2) 12 hr. -- 4.5 inches, (3)
24 hr. -- 5.25 inches, (4) 48 hr. -- 6.5 inches, and (5) 96 hr. -- 7.5 inches. Unless it is very dry
when the rain begins just about all rain after the first one inch becomes runoff and does not get a
chance to soak into the ground.
F. Impoundment of water behind a dam brings the risk of raising the water table in the surrounding
area near the dam. Size of the risk depends on the soil type and its permeability. A separate
factor is whether there is some impermeable layer such as bedrock not too far below the ground
surface which will cause the water that soaks into the soil to move horizontally to yards, homes,
and basements. The answer to this question can only be answered definitively by core drilling
the site of the detention dams. I have been told that this has not been done on the golf course,
when doing so would also determine if the impoundment pools should be lined with impervious
materials to stop the problems associated with such "leakage ". The longer the storm water is
held in detention, the longer distance the infiltrated water will percolate through the soil. It
seems to me that the city would have significant risk of liability if lawns are turned into
wetlands, or basements receive a heavy increase of infiltration due to modification of the existing
water table caused by seepage from the retention dams.
El
G. All retention dams and diversion channels will require periodic removal of sediment that
accumulates therein. This is not something that will have to be done annually but each few years
it will be required to keep the pipes, diversions, and dams operating as intended. Access by
heavy equipment will be required to do this with the accompanying disturbance to the adjoining
neighborhoods. This is a recurring cost to the city and would have to be budgeted for.
H. The two sheets of engineering plans that I have seen are labeled as Alternative 13B and concern
the Westhaven Golf Course, the Armory Detention, and the Tippler Detention. Are there other
alternatives which have not been presented to the citizens? Do Alternatives 1 through 12 exist?
Is there an Alternative 14, or 15? Simply stated, are there already other choices that are
available? My most important question, if I were a Westhaven resident would be: If the golf
course property did not exist what would be the alternative plan Obviously something else
would have to be devised.
I. What are some alternatives that could address the flooding issues along Sawyer Creek? The
tradeoffs of cost versus benefits should enter into the picture. In reviewing 100 -year flood maps
for Sawyer Creek it is apparent that much property in the mid to lower end of the creek's route
through the city should never have been developed. The vulnerability of all these properties to
flooding cannot be reasonably cured. For some structures the cost effective solution probably
would be to condemnibuyout and demolish those buildings rather than trying to prevent their
being flooded. This should be viable for properties along the creek on the west side of Hwy. 41.
It would not be workable from Hwy. 41 to Fox River because of the very large number of
buildings that are located in the 100 -year floodplain. Realistically, there is probably nothing that
can be solved in these neighborhoods. A major factor is the influence that the Fox River has on
the ability of Sawyer Creek to discharge its flow into the Fox. The elevation of the Fox, whether
at normal or higher as in the case of storm runoff from its watershed, will delay the flow of and.
cause a backwater effect on Sawyer Creek. This slowing of its flow will exacerbate the flooding
of the lower reaches of Sawyer Creek. Even the level of Lake Winnebago influences the
discharge flow rate of Sawyer Creek. I understand that it was at an abnormally high level at the
time of the storms in June and consequently contributed to the slowing of the runoff from the
city and by extension, the flooding.
J. Once again, I believe that the best solution to reduce flooding is to intercept the storm flow
outside existing neighborhoods. Admittedly, I have a biased view based on my experience in
upstream flood control, but for the relief of flooding and sediment reduction, the interception of
storm water outside the city limits is a better alternative than disruption /destruction of
neighborhood amenities and infrastructure. This alternative can be accomplished by a series of
multiple small dams in the agricultural areas of Sawyer Creek. Fewer and larger dams would be
equally effective but depend on the topography and land or easement acquisition costs.
I have attached a series of five exhibits which suggest some potential locations for dams outside
the southwest city limits on Sawyer Creek which would provide a measure of flood and sediment
control for downstream areas along Sawyer Creek within the city. First, three dams are grouped
fairly closely together just to the west of Carl Traeger Elementary School and are shown in
Exhibits Al , A2, and A3. Second, a fourth dam is located about 3/4 mile farther upstream to the
southwest and is shown in Exhibits B 1 and B2. I have roughly estimated using the GIS aerial
photographs and USGS topographic data that 9 to 10 square miles of drainage area can be
controlled above the dam #1 location. The reduction in storm runoff peak discharge through the
city could be huge. This is simply an alternative which might be considered. The four proposed
dams are shown for illustration only, because hydrology, topography and geology would
determine the number, size, and location of feasible flood control dams.
K. I understand that there was a "threat" made that the expiration of golf course covenants would
allow the development of the golf course into apartments, other housing, or commercial property
if it was not converted into the proposed Alternative 13B. Give me a break. More streets,
parking, and rooftops ensure more runoff, and faster time of concentration,---- Guaranteed more
floodin¢ downstream and more sediment in the runoff Solves nothing, and makes matters much
worse than the current situation. Past development has obviously already overwhelmed the
watershed's capacity to safely and adequately handle storm runoff above a certain threshold.
AA. My experience in flood control projects I worked as a civil engineer for the USDA's Soil
Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) for almost two decades.
I performed all aspects of engineering while working in the upstream watershed flood control
program. This work related to flood control dams, channel improvement, and erosion control
structures. I worked in surveying, planning, designing, and constructing those structures. I
supervised surveys, served as a member of watershed planning staffs, served as design engineer,
and served as project engineer on multiple flood control construction contracts. At one point I
also created a 100 -year flood plain map performing all hydrology and flood routing for a 100
square mile area surround a city approximately the size of Oshkosh.
I do not pretend that all of the above conclusions, questions, or interpretations have to be
completely correct. They are based upon a limited review of some of the Campbell Creek
project documents and internet accessible data. Other documents, plans, drawings, etc. may exist
that could affect some of my hypotheses. Thus some of my questions and criticisms may be
answerable and therefore ruled invalid, however I do not expect this to be the case in a
consequential way.
For Your Consideration,
P] , -:a ��
M. T. Parr, P.E.
3i
Exhibit Al
Winnebago_Count�r 1; view And Property Profiler
Pro perty Profile Search Options Locator
& Display Options Menu Map
.......... ..... .. . ........ .
Pro ert _I_ formation Pr_fi e
F f— Check This Box then click a property
to initiate a 'Property Profile'. Property profiler
reports the parcel information and checks interactions with
multiple layers not available as part of the regular'Display
Options' More About_Profi_led
Displ OpOplL_
Draw Label Symbology & Layer Names
TW Z ' Aerial Photos (2003)
7 Z Buildings
F S . Parcel Boundaries
Z F Parcel Dimensions
i Parcel Addresses
Certified Surveys
01 Floodplain
fW Z Navigable Streams
W %�� Official Mapped Rds.
i i Public Land Survey
Railroads
® !tit! Rights -Of -Way
F X Shoreland Zoning
r DR. Street Name Text
City & Village Limits
= Not Applicable for this Layer.
Page 1 of 1
Zoom
In
L
D
R
A
W
M
A
F
G .
CL
Zoom
Out
Exhibit Al
I have marked the above photograph with the potential location of three detention/flood
control dams. This is in the area just outside the city limits of Oshkosh and northeast of
the intersection of Clairville Road and W. 20th Ave. Any dams constructed in this area
would be height limited by the elevation of the intersection (under which Sawyer Creek
flows) and the existing buildings near that intersection. Optimally, only one dam would
be the choice, i.e., #1. But, due to the elevation limitation, three smaller dams could be
configured to effectively perform the same amount of temporary flood retention and
sediment entrapment As long as other retention is performed farther upstream. The size,
shape, and length of the dams would be determined by the topography, and dams #1 and
#2 could somewhat involve the school tract.
Also attached are Exhibit A2 which is an enlarged view of the potential locations for
dams #1 and #2, and Exhibit A3 which is a similar enlarged view showing dam #3.
http: / /wcws2.co. winnebago. wi. us lcgi- binlmapsrv4.2.5 ?zoomsize =l &zoomdir =0 &layer =f0... 8/23/2008
* ** Powered by Mapserver * **
Exhibit A2
Winnq4
a County_GlSVig�vVgr�_aqd_p_rpperty
Page I of 1
& Display Options 14 '-__ M enu ................ - .........
Z = Not Applicable for this Layer.
Exhibit A2
This is an enlarged view of the potential locations for dams #1 and #2.
http://wcws2.co.winnebago.wi.uslcgi-binlmapsrv4.2.5?zoomsize=l&zoomdir--O&Iayer 8/23/2008
Powered by Mapserver
F <— Check This Box then click a property
to initiate
a 'Property Profile'. Property profiler
Zoom
reports
the parcel information and checks interactions with
In
multiple layers not available as part of the regular'Display
Options.'
M r A0q_Q_tPMfi
iller!
Displace Optipins
Draw
Label
Symbology & Layer Names
.A! Aerial Photos (2003)
D
�
Z'
Buildings
R
Parcel Boundaries
A
W
Parcel Dimensions
Parcel Addresses
Al
L Certified Surveys
P
Floodplain
P Navigable Streams
Official Mapped Rds.
<),
Public Land Survey
Zoom
Railroads
Out
/V Rights-Of-Way
F
z
I Shoreland Zoning
Z
W
DR- Street Name Text
City & Village Limits
Z = Not Applicable for this Layer.
Exhibit A2
This is an enlarged view of the potential locations for dams #1 and #2.
http://wcws2.co.winnebago.wi.uslcgi-binlmapsrv4.2.5?zoomsize=l&zoomdir--O&Iayer 8/23/2008
Powered by Mapserver
r Exhibit A3
Zoom
In
D
R
A
W
M
A
P
Zoom
out
Page 1 of 1
* ** Powered by Mapserver * ** I I
Exhibit A3
This is an enlarged view of the potential location for dam:. #3.
& Display Options Menu Map
Prope_'_1_ formati P i_fi_
F <-- Check This Box then click a properly
to initiate a 'Property Profile'. Property profiler
reports the parcel information and checks interactions with
multiple layers not available as part of the regular'Display
Options.' More About Profiled
DisD tay Options
Draw Label Symbology & Layer Names
i� Aerial Photos (2003)
Buildings
1 I a f Parcel Boundaries
® iT ° Parcel Dimensions
!?' Parcel Addresses
t Certified Surveys
® Floodplain
Navigable Streams
Official Mapped Rds.
F F Public Land Survey
` Railroads
IV Rights -Of -Way
Shoreland Zoning
CR. Street Name Text
i� Z City & Village Limits
®= Not Applicable for this Layer.
http:// wcws2. co. winnebago .wi.uslcgi- binlmapsrv4.2.5 ?zoomsize =l &zoomdir =0 &layer =fO... 8/23/2008
Winn
ebago_Coun GIS Viewer and Property_Profiiter
Exhibit B1
Winnebago_County_GIS Viewer and Property Profiler
Page 1 of 1
Map
Zoom
In
D
R
A
W
M
A
P
Zoom
out
—
e— Check This Box then click a property
to
initiate a'Property Profile'. Property profiler
reports the parcel information and checks interactions with
multiple layers not available as part of the regular'Display
Options.' More About_ Profiler!
Disptay__O_ptions
Draw Label Symbology & Layer Names
Aerial Photos (2003)
f"
Z
Buildings
r
X' Parcel Boundaries
F
tt< Parcel Dimensions
F
i 5615 Parcel Addresses
F
iJ
ED Certified Surveys
3v
�® Floodplain
Navigable Streams
f Official Mapped Rds.
F
F
Public Land Survey
;r
Z`
•` Railroads
Tv
Z
h! Rights -Of -Way
F
X
Shoreland Zoning
FA
•v
C ' R Street Name Text
rr
Z
City & Village Limits
19 = Not Applicable for this Layer.
Exhibit B 1
I have marked the above photograph with the potential location of the fourth
detention/flood control dam. This is also located in the area outside the city limits of
Oshkosh and directly to the southwest of the intersection of Clairville Road and W. 20th
Ave. Located in pure agricultural land, any size dam could be constructed here. The
size, shape, and length of the dam would be determined by the topography.
Also attached is Exhibit B2 which is an enlarged view of the potential location for dam
#4.
http:// wcws2. co. winnebago. wi. us /cgi- binlmapsrv4.2.5 ?zoomsize =l &zoomdir=0 &layer =fn... 8/23/2008
*** Powered by Mapserver * **
Exhibit B2 Page I of I
Winnebago CquRty GIS-Viewer and Pro erty Profiler
f er
& Display Options
................
Locator
Map
0 = Not Applicable for this Layer.
Exhibit B2
This is an enlarged view of the potential location for dam #4.
http://wcws2.co.winnebago.wi.uslcgi-binlmapsrv4.2.5?zoomsize=l&zoomdir- 8/23/2008
*** Powered by Mapserver ***
F
4— Check This Box then click a property
to
initiate a 'Property Profile'. Property profiler
Zoom
reports the parcel information and checks interactions with
In
multiple
layers not available as part of the regular'Dispfay
Options.' More About Profiler!
- ---------- ------ -
Display Op tions
_
Draw Label Symbology & Layer Names
q 4. A Photos (2003)
- :
D
Buildings
R
F
F Parcel Boundaries
A
TPJ
Parcel Dimensions
Parcel Addresses
A
Certified Surveys
P
W
M U Floodplain
Navigable Streams
Official Mapped Rds.
F
F Public Land Survey
Zoom
Railroads
Out
/✓ Rights-Of-Way
Shoreland Zoning
DP- Street Name Text
City & Village Limits
0 = Not Applicable for this Layer.
Exhibit B2
This is an enlarged view of the potential location for dam #4.
http://wcws2.co.winnebago.wi.uslcgi-binlmapsrv4.2.5?zoomsize=l&zoomdir- 8/23/2008
*** Powered by Mapserver ***